Header bar

Site menu

Breadcrumb trail

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

If Yes, please list and define the categories and if possible indicate the number of access requests in each category.

Category

Definition of Category

Number of requests2007-2008

Director to View

Indicates when the ATIP Coordinator (the Director) wants to review the release package before it goes out.

Used 39 times in the files that were closed in the fiscal year, of those, 26 had been received during the fiscal year.

Comms Review

Advisory to Communications that media products may be required.

Used 247 times in the files that were closed in the fiscal year.

2.2– If yes, who makes the determination of the category?

Concerning the Director to View function, the Director determines which are to be reviewed. The determination is based on his appreciation of operational issues or where the unusual may represent a precedent. Concerning the Comms Review, a media advisor reviews the weekly list of new request and indicates a small number where they could like to review the release package to ensure that the information available to media relations staff is current. Requests related to specific individuals are not provided in the weekly list.

2.3– If yes, is there a specific process related to this categorization? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Concerning the Director to View function , as the request is being completed, the Director views the file. This usually happens at the same time that the communications review happens, if is such a review is required. Concerning the Comms Review, it occurs when the file is sent to the delegated manager to review and sign-off of the final release package.

3.1 – On average, how much time does it take your institution to make a final decision on an ATI request under theAct? i.e. What is the total amount of time taken between the receipt of the ATI request and the final decision on disclosure of requested information?

An average of 134.64 days was required to process the 1197 requests closed. The time required was heavily influenced by the backlog of files subject to the self-initiated OIC complaints (Additional information provided to OIC on June 30, 2008:the backlog includes all of the requests carried forward from the previous fiscal year, which, for the most part, were part of the 393 self-initiated OIC complaints.)

Of the files completely received and closed during the fiscal year 2007-2008, the average time to complete was 46.98 days. However, an average of 43.23 days was allowed when the required extensions of time are considered.

3.2 – Disclosure to Requester

Number of requests received during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008)

1030

Number of requests completed during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008)

1197

Pages reviewed

267,229

Pages disclosed in total

Estimated* to be 156,142

Pages disclosed in part

Estimated* to be 23,436

The CBSA has an issue about the manner in which the disposition of pages is being requested. The questionnaire is requesting statistical information concerning the number of pages received, fully disclosed and partially disclosed. The statistical information for pages withheld, duplicate and non-relevant are not requested. This gives the illusion the CBSA is withholding many more pages that it actually is.

Additional information provided to OIC on June 30, 2008:

To properly illustrate how many pages are being fully withheld, the statistics would need to include Withheld, Duplicate and Non-relevant. If several of our branches have the same document(s) and submit them to us in response to an ATI request, a large number of the pages will be duplicates. So by not providing the extra information, clients and the general public will form the impression that we are severing much more information than we actually are.

N.B. All of the pages received are reviewed. It is the only way to determine if they do respond to the request, are duplicated or are non-relevant.

(This question is to be answered by the Privy Council Office (PCO) only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to Cabinet confidences (Please, consult with PCO Legislation and House Planning) (s. 69)

(This question is to be answered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15)

(This question is to be answered by Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)

The interpretation of this question is: all consultations from investigative body status as per Schedule 1 of the Act.

21 of the consultation requests meet this requirement.

One view was that every consultation that we receive, is reviewed with section 16 in mind – in that case, all 268 would be the proper response

The View that the CBSA used was that only consultations that were received from agencies that were listed in the Schedule 1 of the act as investigative bodies would be considered to have made the request in relation to section 16. I reviewed all the consultation requests that we had received, and added up all of those that were from agencies listed in Schedule 1 of the Access to Information Act.

For completed requests only, average time spent to review pages received for all consultations

92.88 days on average for the 313 Consultations completed.

Sent:

Number of consultations sent

294 files have a number of consultations associated with them. We estimate 1022 consultations were initiated by the CBSA. This estimate is based on a thorough review of 21 complex files.

Number of pages sent for review

Estimated* to be 65,030 pages

Number of consultations sent to PCO Legislation and House Planning related to Cabinet confidences (s. 69)

For Cabinet Confidences (s.69), 27 of the files closed during the fiscal year 2007-2008 were subject of consultations with the PCO.

Number of consultations sent to any institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15)

Estimated* to be 168

Number of consultations sent to any institution related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)

Estimated* to be 140

For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to all consultations sent

Estimated* to be 39.42 days

For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to Cabinet confidences (s. 69)

60.18 days For 52 consultations to PCO within 27 files

For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to defence and national security (s. 15)

Unable to provide the requested statistic. Please see the attached rationale.

For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)

Unable to provide the requested statistic. Please see the attached rationale.

3.6 – Of the total number of access to information requests received during the reporting period, what percentage of these requests required your institution to consult (under paragraph 9(1)(b)) with other federal institutions)?

The following statistics relate to how many consultations were sent to other federal institutions for which an extension was taken under paragraph 9(1)(b)

26.6 percent. 294 of the 1030 request received during the fiscal year 2007-2008 required the CBSA to consult with other federal institutions.

3.7 – Does your institution have in place a policy, a practice or another instrument, such as a protocol (written or not, please specify), to address how consultations received from another institution or sent to another institution or to a third party, are processed?

Yes

X

No

As reflected in documents related to roles and responsibilities of staff, the consultations received by the CBSA are treated like any other request, with the minor variants reflecting that similar records may have already been processed and are available in our system. Internal consideration of the consultations (requests for recommendations from subject matter experts) are started immediately, and the process allows 15 days to complete such requests.

For consultations that are sent to other departments, the analyst prepares the consultation, has it approved by the Team Leader, then places the consultation in the mail.

3.8 – Priority: Are consultations processed on a priority basis?

Yes

No

X

Consultations are treated as any other request.

4. Time to Process Requests

4.1 Processing Model - Stages

Days Allocated

Average Actual Days

Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) intake

3

OPI search

8

Records review

13

Records preparation

0

Legal

0

Communications

2*

Approval or otherwise – ATIP

4 Includes review by a Team Leader and then a Manager

Approval or otherwise – OPI

Not applicable

Approval or otherwise – DMO

Not applicable

Approval or otherwise - MO

Not applicable

ATIP release

Included in the approval stage

*Usually done concurrently with the approval process.

4.2 – Other than the stages identified in 4.1, does your institution have in place other approval or review processes for requests that are categorized in a special manner as in A.2 above? If yes, please list them.

4.3 – If other approval or review processes in place, for each stage, please explain in as much detail as possible the rationale for, and purpose of this additional approval or review stage.

Please note that the Director to View action is usually opened while the request is still in the intake stage and is closed just before the release package is sent out. As such the number of days taken has no reflection on how long the Director actually took to review the request prior to release. Director to View process occurs concurrently with the approval process.

4.4 – Please indicate whether this additional approval or review stage applies (1) to a specific type or category of requests, (2) systematically to all access requests or (3) on a case-by-case basis.

The Director determines which files are to be reviewed. The determination is based on his appreciation of operational issues or where the unusual may represent a precedent

4.5 – Please indicate whether the roles and responsibilities of this approval or review stage are clearly established in a decision or a policy.

The Director decides which files are to be reviewed.

4.6 – In your opinion, has this other stage resulted in any increase in the delay to release the requested information?

Always

Almost always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

X

5. Extensions Profile

5.1 – When an extension is taken under section 9, do you document on the file a rationale to justify the decision to invoke an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

For 9(1)(a): The CBSA has an established procedure for physical search fees and volume requests. The OPI provides a sampling to enable search fees to be established. The sample is also used to confirm the volume or records. For volumous requests, the OPI provides documentation on the physical size of the requested documents.

The CBSA has an interim electronic search fee guide. The principles of this guide have been discussed with the OIC (Sandra George) and our approach is supported in principle. The electronic search fee guide is still in development.

For 9(1)(b): When the documents clearly belong or pertain to another organization, the CBSA initiates the consultation and takes the appropriate extension, reflecting the volume of documents and recent experience with the other institution.

5.2 – Following an extension, if it is unlikely that the extended date will be met, does the ATIP Office contact the requester to indicate:

a) The response will be late

Always

Almost always

Sometimes

X

Rarely

Never

b) Of an expected date for the final response

Always

Almost always

Sometimes

X

Rarely

Never

c) Of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner

Always

X

Almost always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5.3 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer provided under 5.2 a), b) and c)

When a letter is sent, the requester is always informed of the right to complain. Additional information provided to OIC on June 30, 2008: About “response will be late” and “expected date for the final response”, the CBSA does not currently have any policies on this issue, it is left up to the judgement of the Analysts processing the file.

5.4 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(a) – Large volume of records and Interference with the operations of the federal institution

2005-2006Number of days

For volume (search “for” large number of records)

< 30

30-90

91-120

121-150

151-180

>180

16

6

For volume (search “through” large number of records)

The CBSA records both searches, “for” and “through” records in the same data field.

2006-2007Number of days

For volume (search “for” large number of records)

< 30

30-90

91-120

121-150

151-180

>180

71

3

For volume (search “through” large number of records)

The CBSA records both searches, “for” and “through” records in the same data field.

5.5 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(a) (“large number of records”)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

5.6 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(a) (large number of records) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The current practice is for the Analyst to monitor progress and for the OPI to advise if there are any issues. As well, the software prompts the Analyst when actions are due, that is, when the documents should be arriving.

5.7 – Extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) – Consultations

2005-2006Number of days

< 30

30-90

91-120

121-150

151-180

>180

For consultation with another federal institution

For consultation with foreign government

For consultation with domestic government

For consultation with aboriginal government

For consultation with individual

For consultation for section 69

Please note that this information is on the previous software database, and is not easily accessible at this time.

2006-2007Number of days

< 30

30-90

91-120

121-150

151-180

>180

For consultation with another federal institution

42

15

For consultation with foreign government

For consultation with domestic government

17

2

For consultation with aboriginal government

For consultation with individual

For consultation for section 69

2

1

1

Please note that the CBSA does not consult directly with foreign governments. All such consultations go through the Department of Foreign Affairs. This mean that consultations relating to foreign governments would be counted under ‘consultation with another federal institution. However, this is not the case for third party consultations, even when those third parties are located outside of Canada.

Please note that the CBSA does not consult directly with foreign governments. All such consultations go through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

5.8 – If consultations are taken under paragraph 9(1)(b),are these sent out as soon as the need has been identified?

Always

Almost always

X

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5.9 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The general practice is to verify how many extensions are required, whether they be for volume and/or external consultations. Once all the required extensions have been determined, then the extensions for an appropriate number of days are taken, with the required notices sent to the requester and the OIC (as required by section 9(2) of the Access to Information Act).

5.10 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Based on our experience, most 9(1)(b) consultations are completed within 30 days. Thus, the majority of such extensions reflect this timeframe. Additional information provided to OIC on June 30, 2008: The consultations with PCO and DFAIT are not normally completed within the 30 days. The majority of our consultations are with other departments, and most of those are completed within 30 days.

5.11 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) are taken, are there any circumstances where for certain consultations, a certain amount of time is always taken by the federal institution to which the consultation is sent? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Based on our experience, 30 days is a reasonable extension. Where the consultations are completed within the timeframe, the request is finalized as soon as possible.

5.12 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The current practice is for the Analyst to monitor progress and for the institutions being consulted to advise if there are any issues. As well, the software prompts the Analyst when actions are due, that is, when the recommendations on the documents sent out for consultation should be arriving.

5.13 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(c) – Notices to third parties

Note: With respect to customs information, the CBSA can apply section 24 of the Access to Information Act to commercial information that is provided in confidence by commercial importers for customs purposes. This can avoid delays associated with extensive third party consultations when commercial import information is being sought. Many commercial importers make “one-time” importations and often are non-residents of Canada. In such cases, it would be very difficult to consult. Furthermore, customs information often relates to the internal pricing of goods or inputs on manufacturing processes. In our experience, consent to release such information would not be provided.

5.14 – Are third party notices sentto third parties pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c) and subsection 27(1) sent out before thirty days have lapsed?

Always

X

Almost always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5.15 – If you have not checked “Always”, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

5.16 –Are notices sent assoon as the need for the notice is identified?

Always

Almost always

X

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

5.17 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

There may be a short delay in sending out the notices, as the Analyst will verify that they have all the information that belongs to the third party, and if there are any other consultations needed before the consultation letters are sent out to all the appropriate parties.

5.18 – When an extension is invoked under paragraph 9(1)(c) for third party notification, how often does the institution meet the statutory timelines? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Always

Almost always

Sometimes

X

Rarely

Never

We interpret the question to be: does the third party institution meet the statutory timeline. In the fiscal year of 2007-2008, there were 16 requests that required consultations with third parties. There was a total of 66 separate consultations, 29 met the statutory timeline.

5.19– When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c) (notices to third party) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that the federal institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The current practice is for the Analyst to monitor progress and for the institutions being consulted to advise if there are any issues. As well, the software prompts the Analyst when actions are due, that is when the recommendations on the documents sent out for consultation should be arriving.

5.20 – When extensions are taken under paragraphs 9(1)(b) and / or 9(1)(c) – consultations – does the ATIP Office provide a partial release of the requested records for portions of the request that are not involved in the consultation process?

Always

Almost always

Sometimes

Rarely

X

Never

5.21 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

It is not usually necessary for the CBSA to do interim releases. In our experience, such practice can create overall delays as they are more resource intensive. In addition, the relevant information is often complex, and without the recommendations from the consultation to help put the documents in context, some information may be disclosed in error. Also, with current resources and practices, the CBSA reasonably expects to meet timelines associated with the extension. There are exceptions, and files are considered on a case-by-case basis. If the requester indicates that there are time critical constraints, such as upcoming court case, the CBSA will favorably consider an interim release.

6.1 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

The rationale is provided by OPIs and officers, or can be associated with earlier requests seeking similar information

6.2 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

Where jurisprudence is not clear, the Team Leader will discuss the matter with a Manager, and occasionally, Legal Services will be asked to provide advice.

6.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a discretionary exemption?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

Tasking assignments remind the OPIs of the need to provide recommendations on the sensitivity of the records. The requirement is reinforced during ATIP awareness sessions. Recommendations are considered by Analysts and are captured in the redaction system as notes on specific records when there are precedential, or when new issues are raised.

6.4 – Is the discretionary exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and/or the ATIP Office?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

The rationale is provided by OPIs and officers, or can be associated with earlier requests that sought similar information

6.5 – Is there a documented discretionary exemption challenge function in ATIP Office if the rationale is prepared by OPIs?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

The matter is addressed, in part, by notes concerning the exercise of delegated authority. Where there is a difference of opinion, the issue is raised to the manager level, and then to the ATIP coordinator. The ATIP and Disclosure Policy management team will deal with the issue through Branch contacts and directly with OPIs. On occasion, Legal Services will be consulted. Where a significant impasse may remain, it is brought to the Executive Management Committee, chaired by the President. This final step is rarely required.

7.1 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

The rationale is provided by OPIs and confirmed by ATIP Analysts. They consider the use of the exemption applied in past cases that dealt with similar information.

7.2 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

Where jurisprudence is not clear, the Team Leader will discuss the matter with a Manager, and occasionally, Legal Services will be asked to provide advice.

7.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a mandatory exemption?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

Tasking assignments remind the OPIs of the need to provide recommendations on the sensitivity of the records. The requirement is re-enforced during ATIP awareness sessions. Recommendations are considered by Analysts and are captured in the redaction system as notes on specific records when there are precedential, or when new issues are raised.

7.4 – Is the mandatory exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and / or the ATIP Office?

Yes

No

X

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

The rationale is provided by OPIs and confirmed by ATIP Analysts. They consider the use of the exemption applied in past cases that dealt with similar information.

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

The matter is addressed, in part, by notes concerning the exercise of delegated authority. Where there is a difference of opinion, the issue is raised to the manager level, and then to the ATIP coordinator. The ATIP and Disclosure Policy management team will deal with the issue through Branch contacts and directly with OPIs. On occasion, Legal Services will be consulted. Where a significant impasse may remain, it is brought to the Executive Management Committee, chaired by the President. This final step is rarely required.

B. DEEMED-REFUSAL REQUESTS

Part I: Requests carried over from the 2006-2007 fiscal period.

1.

Number of requests carried over:

324

2.

Requests carried over from the previous fiscal period — in a deemed-refusal situation on the first day of the new fiscal period:

204

Part II: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part I.

3.

Number of requests received during the 2007-2008 fiscal period:

1030

4.A

How many were processed within the statutory 30-day time limit?

661

4.B

How many were processed beyond the statutory 30-day time limitwhere no extension was claimed?

137

5.

How many were extended pursuant to section 9?

363

5.A

How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a)?

125 12 are still active

5.B

How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(b)?

229 14 are still active

5.C

How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c)?

9

6.A

How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5)

234

6.B

How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5)

103

7.A

How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A)

75

7.B

How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A)

38

8.A

How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B)

156

8.B

How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B)

59

9.A

How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C)

3

9.B

How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C)

6

10

As of March 31, 2008, how many requests were in a deemed-refusal situation?

9

Note: The interpretation of Part II, was for requests received in the fiscal year of 2007-2008, regardless of when the extensions were taken.

Note: While 1030 were received in the fiscal year. Of those new requests, 875 were processed and closed during the fiscal year. 661 of those 875 were closed within the statutory time limits.

Note: The CBSA does not hire Consultants to strictly process ATI requests. As with the full time employees, they do a mix of ATIA and PA requests. The majority of the consultant’s time is spent on ATIA requests (75-80%)

2. Salary Dollar Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal Year

Budget Allocated

Budget Used

FTEs Allocated

FTEs Used

2007-2008

$

$814,944.00

17.04

2006-2007

$

$982,676.15

2005-2006

$

$451,260.00

9.84

3. Operating Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal Year

Budget Allocated

Budget Used

2007/2008

$

$1,731,967.00

2006/2007

$

$822,441.32

2005/2006

$

$172,830.00

4. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Training or Training Materials

Fiscal Year

ATI Staff Training

Departmental ATI Training

2007/2008

$

$48,262.00

2006/2007

$

$35,585.18

2005/2006

$

$5,394.00

5. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Consultants

1. – Is the ATIP Coordinator responsible exclusively for the administration of the ATIP Office?

Yes

No

X

2. – If No, please list other responsibilities of the ATIP Coordinator.

The ATI Coordinator is responsible for ATIP operations and disclosure policy (interpretation of program authorities related to the use, access to and disclosure of information as provide by section 107 of the Customs Act; framework advice concerning written collaborative arrangements dealing with information exchange; and policy advice concerning Privacy Impact Assessments.)

3. – When requests processing stages, other than those listed in section A.4 of this questionnaire, are in place, who has the designated authority to make decisions on the disclosure or refusal to disclose information under theAccess to Information Act(s. 73)?

The Managers have full delegation, and the Team Leaders have partial delegation. Please see the attached copy of the delegation order.

E. SPECIFICS FOR 2007-2008

In this section, the institution is asked to provide details relating to the information provided in response to the questionnaire:

1. – Please describe the most significant issues that affected your institution's ability to (i) respond to access to information requests as quickly as possible and/or (ii) provide requesters with as much of the information requested as possible.

The mandate of the CBSA requires close collaboration with numerous federal institutions, thus there is frequently a requirement to consult or confirm which institution has the primary interest in the records.

Year to year workload increases require frequent review of processes and workflows. Rebuilding the organization to respond to increasing workflows has been necessary, but with transitory impacts on the efficiency of operations.

As CBSA operations become integrated, reorganized and/or otherwise mature, it is becoming evident that records management processes will need additional investment so that timely and thorough searches for relevant information can be completed.

2. – For the issues identified in the response to Q. 1 above, were they foreseeable? Please explain.

Issues related to the creation of the CBSA were anticipated, the growth in ATIP workload has far outweighed original estimates. The need to make additional investment in records management related activity is being studied.

3. – Please describe any best practices developed / undertaken by your institution to improve your delivery of the access to information program. If possible, please indicate how successful these practices have been.

In the past year, we have invested in Access and Privacy awareness training, with over 830 employees participating in sessions. This has contributed in timely searches, the improved quality of recommendations on sensitive documents (recommendations which are more frequently written with an understanding of the Act). Significant investment in modern software tools has contributed to case management and the timely intervention of management on emergent issues.

The use of consultants to address certain complex files has enabled management to focus additional time to integrate or orientate new staff to ATIP operations.

G. COMPLAINT PROFILE

Data supplied by the Office of the Information Commissioner on complaints made to its Office and the resolution of those complaints.